Options
Noted left-wing Icon Noam Chomsky says Obama will be guilty of war crimes
[Deleted User]
Posts: 4,845
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Noam Chomsky Weighs In On Syria Strike
Posted: 09/02/2013 5:19 pm EDT | Updated: 09/03/2013 10:42 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.
"[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," he added.
Chomsky upended the field of linguistics with a devastating critique of B.F. Skinner in 1959 that changed the way people think about human cognitive development.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/noam-chomsky-syria_n_3851911.html
So are we going to see the kind of commotion over charging Obama with war crimes just like they did to Bush, or does he get a free pass because he is THE anointed one?
Posted: 09/02/2013 5:19 pm EDT | Updated: 09/03/2013 10:42 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.
"[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," he added.
Chomsky upended the field of linguistics with a devastating critique of B.F. Skinner in 1959 that changed the way people think about human cognitive development.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/noam-chomsky-syria_n_3851911.html
So are we going to see the kind of commotion over charging Obama with war crimes just like they did to Bush, or does he get a free pass because he is THE anointed one?
0
Comments
I see he's promoted himself to judge and jury.
I thought it was a woman. I guess you can tell I've never heard the name of this noted left wing icon
Technically under a 2005 ruling there is (arguably) already approval since the concept of other countries stepping in to protect the citizens when their own government fails.
However all bets are off if he goes in with the intention of regime change.
Obama?
No, O'Bomber!
I dunno. these things are very woolly.
regime change could be the best way to protect the citizens etc.
Like in Chile you mean?
The RT stalwart that is Noam Chomsky has his priorities wrong. The war criminals are Assad and his henchmen who were directly responsible for the orders for, and undertaking of, the nerve gas attack in Damascus. No amount of posturing by pro-Assad useful idiots such as Chomsky or indeed those in this forum will have any effect. There will almost certainly be a justifiable military response to Assad's nerve gas war crime.
Well Chomsky was certainly wrong when he seemingly voiced support for the British monarchy.
It is also important to indulge in rabid personal attack rather than civilised debate - eg "Obama is a war criminal"
I hardly think the OP is 'left wing', although his attacks on Obama have been legion.
There aren't exactly a huge amount of women walking around called "Noam", it has to be said.
Oops own goal.:D
There is no reason why Assad and Obama can't BOTH be criminals.
Is his priority to blindly support American action? And since when was he pro-Assad? It seems that you're living in some sort of black and white partisan fantasy land.
Although it might get in the way of your own biases (hence your unnecessary post above), you might care to read the full French intelligence report about the real war crime of a nerve gas attack upon civilians in Damascus: http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers_joints/syrie_synthese_nationale_de_renseignement_declassifie_02_09_2013.pdf
To sum up that report, the report stated that said that there was a massive use of chemical agents involved in the attack of August 21 and that only the Assad regime had the technical capability to carry out an attack of the scale of the August 21 nerve gas attack. The report attributed at least 281 civilian deaths to that attack and said that the Assad regime could carry out other strikes of a similar nature in the future.
This is it really.
Assad is clearly a nasty piece of work and a brutal dictator.
But Obama is also clearly Bush/Blair Mark II when it comes to warmongering and exaggeration (possibly even outright deception).
They don't have to be mutually exclusive facts.
Obama says Syria threatens USA directly with chemical weapons! I don't know but that kinda reminds me of a certain someone.....Who can it be? Oh wait.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10272874/Barack-Obama-warns-of-Syria-chemical-weapons-threat-to-US.html
Barack Obama argued that Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons not only violated international norms but threatened America, as he hardened the US position on the alleged used of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.
"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organisations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen," he said.
Mr Obama did not present any direct evidence to back up his assertions.
The last US president who made phony case for war based on unsubstantiated evidence or does Curveball not ring any bells
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Wrong then and could well be wrong now but what will happen will happen and damn the facts. If you weren't so blatantly partisan in stance your outrage might have more credibility.
Would be really nice to think lessons have been leant but I suspect that won't be the case. If the hawks decide we need action then evidence will be found and if none exists, then it will be found anyway.
TBH the bench and the jury box are already pretty crowded with people on both sides of the debate seeking to occupy those positions.
He's opposed to military action without UN backing for it. That does not make him pro-Assad, in fact you'd see he definitely isn't if you did a bit of research. His position is hardly controversial on this.